CARBS???
Replies
-
So you want to disagree with his comment that weight loss is about caloris in vs calories out by stating that restricting carbs HELPS THEM MAINTAIN A CALORIC DEFICIT?I suggest you read the Primal Blueprint (by the same author that writes MarksDailyApple.com). This book mostly promotes a paleo lifestyle, but I'm recommending it because he does a good job explaining what carbs have to do with weight management.
Thank you for a useless response. So supportive and helpful.
Really, this thread was actually doing very well at just offering advice and not putting down people's opinions. It's a good thing you're around to screw that all up
About as useful as relying on Sisson's ridiculous carbohydrate curve.
Weight loss is about calories in vs calories out. Period. If you are in a caloric deficit you will lose weight, regardless of whether or not you restrict carbs.
Not always true, especially for those with glucose metabolism issues. And restricting carbs for many actually helps them maintain a caloric deficit more easily because fat and protein are highly satiating and they aren't eating as many food with empty calories (often found in high carb foods).
So, you may not like the source of the material, but there are solid reasons for the advice. Can't say the same for your completely empty ridicule.
Makes sense to me.
Give me 100 subjects who lost weight by simply reducing caloric intake and eating what they chose and 100 subjects who did it by going low carb and you can be the former will stick with it longer down the road.0 -
I suggest you read the Primal Blueprint (by the same author that writes MarksDailyApple.com). This book mostly promotes a paleo lifestyle, but I'm recommending it because he does a good job explaining what carbs have to do with weight management.
Thank you for a useless response. So supportive and helpful.
Really, this thread was actually doing very well at just offering advice and not putting down people's opinions. It's a good thing you're around to screw that all up
About as useful as relying on Sisson's ridiculous carbohydrate curve.
Weight loss is about calories in vs calories out. Period. If you are in a caloric deficit you will lose weight, regardless of whether or not you restrict carbs.
How much have you lost? I've lost 20 lbs in 8 weeks following "Sisson's ridiculous carbohydrate curve".
Yes, you need to have a calorie deficit. For an awful lot of people eating less carbs makes it easier to do so. The carb curve provides guidance to figure out where to start. Perhaps you should do a little reading on the topic before putting down these ideas. If it's not for you, that's your business. But thousands have found that Sisson's (and Taubes', and Atkins') advise works. And others have found that it doesn't, I'm aware of that. But that just means people are diverse. It doesn't make it ridiculous.
Edit: One more fact: According to MFP I should only be losing about 1 lbs/week based on my calorie deficit. I'm averaging 2.5 lbs/week. There's something else going on here. Could be the lower carbs, could be something else. Either way, it's more than just calorie deficit.0 -
So you want to disagree with his comment that weight loss is about caloris in vs calories out by stating that restricting carbs HELPS THEM MAINTAIN A CALORIC DEFICIT?I suggest you read the Primal Blueprint (by the same author that writes MarksDailyApple.com). This book mostly promotes a paleo lifestyle, but I'm recommending it because he does a good job explaining what carbs have to do with weight management.
Thank you for a useless response. So supportive and helpful.
Really, this thread was actually doing very well at just offering advice and not putting down people's opinions. It's a good thing you're around to screw that all up
About as useful as relying on Sisson's ridiculous carbohydrate curve.
Weight loss is about calories in vs calories out. Period. If you are in a caloric deficit you will lose weight, regardless of whether or not you restrict carbs.
Not always true, especially for those with glucose metabolism issues. And restricting carbs for many actually helps them maintain a caloric deficit more easily because fat and protein are highly satiating and they aren't eating as many food with empty calories (often found in high carb foods).
So, you may not like the source of the material, but there are solid reasons for the advice. Can't say the same for your completely empty ridicule.
Makes sense to me.
Give me 100 subjects who lost weight by simply reducing caloric intake and eating what they chose and 100 subjects who did it by going low carb and you can be the former will stick with it longer down the road.
I'm saying that they're both legitimate paths, depending on the individual circumstances. Some will find sheer caloric deficit sufficient, others will need to manipulate the deficit in very specific ways to (1) see comparable results and (2) maintain the change in the long term.
For those with glucose metabolism issues, restricting carbs is almost a must (though the amount of restriction greatly varies) -- go talk to people with diabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, etc. and you'll see this is a common path. And considering that over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance in the pre-diabetic or diabetic category, there a LOT of people with such issues -- and many of them are undiagnosed and unaware of such issues -- both for themselves personally as well as how incredibly common they are in the population at large. And I bet of people significantly over weight (30+ lbs), it's even more common as insulin resistance makes it easier to put on weight and harder to take it off.
But, hey, just ignore all those real-world issues and keep spouting your one-way-is-the-only-way rhetoric.0 -
No one has said it doesnt work.I suggest you read the Primal Blueprint (by the same author that writes MarksDailyApple.com). This book mostly promotes a paleo lifestyle, but I'm recommending it because he does a good job explaining what carbs have to do with weight management.
Thank you for a useless response. So supportive and helpful.
Really, this thread was actually doing very well at just offering advice and not putting down people's opinions. It's a good thing you're around to screw that all up
About as useful as relying on Sisson's ridiculous carbohydrate curve.
Weight loss is about calories in vs calories out. Period. If you are in a caloric deficit you will lose weight, regardless of whether or not you restrict carbs.
How much have you lost? I've lost 20 lbs in 8 weeks following "Sisson's ridiculous carbohydrate curve".
Yes, you need to have a calorie deficit. For an awful lot of people eating less carbs makes it easier to do so. The carb curve provides guidance to figure out where to start. Perhaps you should do a little reading on the topic before putting down these ideas. If it's not for you, that's your business. But thousands have found that Sisson's (and Taubes', and Atkins') advise works. And others have found that it doesn't, I'm aware of that. But that just means people are diverse. It doesn't make it ridiculous.
I have lost 27 is 7 weeks on a diff program that doesnt do anything other than reduce calories.
I have done the low carb thing in the past and it didnt teach me anything when I got to where I wanted to go other than restricting carbs, and anything that can be that restricting can be a tough thing to follow for a lifetime. I know there is some program to slowly increase them but the tougher things are the more people mess them up.
Even you mention how it is about less calories than you burn. If someone can do the same by not limiting really any food then that can be a more sustainable program than the low carb.0 -
Nothing wrong with restricting carbs if you find it easier to adhere to, but Sisson's graph is utter nonsense. Plenty have lost significant weight while consuming levels of carbs that he claims will result in "insidious weight gain".
So it's got a flaw. I noted that in my original post about it:Bear in mind, the ranges provided are going to be higher if you are very active. And I'm not sure the statement that you will gain weight if you eat more than 150 g is completely true. I think what really happens is that if you eat less than 150 g/day, your body can burn all of the glucose and does not need to store it as fat. More than 150 g/day and you are storing some of the glucose as fat. If you're eating at a deficit, you can still lose weight. But you'll be producing new fat cells at the same time that you're trying to burn the old fat cells, making weight loss or maintenance harder. That's just my interpretation, I may be wrong.
Again, doesn't make it ridiculous. It's a place to start.0 -
So you want to disagree with his comment that weight loss is about caloris in vs calories out by stating that restricting carbs HELPS THEM MAINTAIN A CALORIC DEFICIT?I suggest you read the Primal Blueprint (by the same author that writes MarksDailyApple.com). This book mostly promotes a paleo lifestyle, but I'm recommending it because he does a good job explaining what carbs have to do with weight management.
Thank you for a useless response. So supportive and helpful.
Really, this thread was actually doing very well at just offering advice and not putting down people's opinions. It's a good thing you're around to screw that all up
About as useful as relying on Sisson's ridiculous carbohydrate curve.
Weight loss is about calories in vs calories out. Period. If you are in a caloric deficit you will lose weight, regardless of whether or not you restrict carbs.
Not always true, especially for those with glucose metabolism issues. And restricting carbs for many actually helps them maintain a caloric deficit more easily because fat and protein are highly satiating and they aren't eating as many food with empty calories (often found in high carb foods).
So, you may not like the source of the material, but there are solid reasons for the advice. Can't say the same for your completely empty ridicule.
Makes sense to me.
Give me 100 subjects who lost weight by simply reducing caloric intake and eating what they chose and 100 subjects who did it by going low carb and you can be the former will stick with it longer down the road.
I'm saying that they're both legitimate paths, depending on the individual circumstances. Some will find sheer caloric deficit sufficient, others will need to manipulate the deficit in very specific ways to (1) see comparable results and (2) maintain the change in the long term.
For those with glucose metabolism issues, restricting carbs is almost a must (though the amount of restriction greatly varies) -- go talk to people with diabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, etc. and you'll see this is a common path. And considering that over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance in the pre-diabetic or diabetic category, there a LOT of people with such issues -- and many of them are undiagnosed and unaware of such issues -- both for themselves personally as well as how incredibly common they are in the population at large. And I bet of people significantly over weight (30+ lbs), it's even more common as insulin resistance makes it easier to put on weight and harder to take it off.
But, hey, just ignore all those real-world issues and keep spouting your one-way-is-the-only-way rhetoric.
Never said my way is the only way. Nice try though.
More sustainable? Cutting carbs or simply eating at a caloric deficit?
Did the low carb, worked like a charm, but when ya get back into the real life of eating it wasnt so fancy.0 -
I used to eat what people consider "normal low carb" (like 30-60%) I felt like crap and developed digestion issues plus my completion aged 5 years in one year. I also developed chronic fatigue (slept 12 hours a day), PCOS, constantly bloated. Now I'm "high carb" and everything is reversing. Just saying be careful.0
-
So you want to disagree with his comment that weight loss is about caloris in vs calories out by stating that restricting carbs HELPS THEM MAINTAIN A CALORIC DEFICIT?
Not always true, especially for those with glucose metabolism issues. And restricting carbs for many actually helps them maintain a caloric deficit more easily because fat and protein are highly satiating and they aren't eating as many food with empty calories (often found in high carb foods).
So, you may not like the source of the material, but there are solid reasons for the advice. Can't say the same for your completely empty ridicule.
Makes sense to me.
Give me 100 subjects who lost weight by simply reducing caloric intake and eating what they chose and 100 subjects who did it by going low carb and you can be the former will stick with it longer down the road.
I'm saying that they're both legitimate paths, depending on the individual circumstances. Some will find sheer caloric deficit sufficient, others will need to manipulate the deficit in very specific ways to (1) see comparable results and (2) maintain the change in the long term.
For those with glucose metabolism issues, restricting carbs is almost a must (though the amount of restriction greatly varies) -- go talk to people with diabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, etc. and you'll see this is a common path. And considering that over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance in the pre-diabetic or diabetic category, there a LOT of people with such issues -- and many of them are undiagnosed and unaware of such issues -- both for themselves personally as well as how incredibly common they are in the population at large. And I bet of people significantly over weight (30+ lbs), it's even more common as insulin resistance makes it easier to put on weight and harder to take it off.
But, hey, just ignore all those real-world issues and keep spouting your one-way-is-the-only-way rhetoric.
Never said my way is the only way. Nice try though.
More sustainable? Cutting carbs or simply eating at a caloric deficit?
Did the low carb, worked like a charm, but when ya get back into the real life of eating it wasnt so fancy.
You present a false argument. You say I was arguing against a caloric deficit -- when I was doing nothing of the sort. Merely pointing out the restricting carbs can be helpful for many ways and that a mere caloric deficit will not be enough for SOME people to see the same results and maintain in the longterm.
You may have found cutting carbs to be more difficult than just a caloric deficit. I found it to be the EXACT opposite. Different people with different issues. Both paths can lead to success, depending on the individual's needs.0 -
I used to eat what people consider "normal low carb" (like 30-60%) I felt like crap and developed digestion issues plus my completion aged 5 years in one year. I also developed chronic fatigue (slept 12 hours a day), PCOS, constantly bloated. Now I'm "high carb" and everything is reversing. Just saying be careful.
I think you need to look into your health issues more. PCOS is not something you develop due to diet or environment. It's based in your genetic code -- you either have the genes for it or you don't. Also, you probably feel like crap because PCOS often comes with insulin resistance -- which can cause extreme fatigue because of the glucose metabolism issue. I don't think I've ever seen anyone with PCOS recommended to eat high carb, but perhaps you've got something else going on where that makes sense.0 -
Cutting carbs wasnt that difficult, just limited the foods to eat and in the long run wasnt as sustainable as just whatever I want at a deficit.
So you want to disagree with his comment that weight loss is about caloris in vs calories out by stating that restricting carbs HELPS THEM MAINTAIN A CALORIC DEFICIT?
Not always true, especially for those with glucose metabolism issues. And restricting carbs for many actually helps them maintain a caloric deficit more easily because fat and protein are highly satiating and they aren't eating as many food with empty calories (often found in high carb foods).
So, you may not like the source of the material, but there are solid reasons for the advice. Can't say the same for your completely empty ridicule.
Makes sense to me.
Give me 100 subjects who lost weight by simply reducing caloric intake and eating what they chose and 100 subjects who did it by going low carb and you can be the former will stick with it longer down the road.
I'm saying that they're both legitimate paths, depending on the individual circumstances. Some will find sheer caloric deficit sufficient, others will need to manipulate the deficit in very specific ways to (1) see comparable results and (2) maintain the change in the long term.
For those with glucose metabolism issues, restricting carbs is almost a must (though the amount of restriction greatly varies) -- go talk to people with diabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, etc. and you'll see this is a common path. And considering that over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance in the pre-diabetic or diabetic category, there a LOT of people with such issues -- and many of them are undiagnosed and unaware of such issues -- both for themselves personally as well as how incredibly common they are in the population at large. And I bet of people significantly over weight (30+ lbs), it's even more common as insulin resistance makes it easier to put on weight and harder to take it off.
But, hey, just ignore all those real-world issues and keep spouting your one-way-is-the-only-way rhetoric.
Never said my way is the only way. Nice try though.
More sustainable? Cutting carbs or simply eating at a caloric deficit?
Did the low carb, worked like a charm, but when ya get back into the real life of eating it wasnt so fancy.
You present a false argument. You say I was arguing against a caloric deficit -- when I was doing nothing of the sort. Merely pointing out the restricting carbs can be helpful for many ways and that a mere caloric deficit will not be enough for SOME people to see the same results and maintain in the longterm.
You may have found cutting carbs to be more difficult than just a caloric deficit. I found it to be the EXACT opposite. Different people with different issues. Both paths can lead to success, depending on the individual's needs.0 -
No one has said it doesnt work.
I have lost 27 is 7 weeks on a diff program that doesnt do anything other than reduce calories.
I have done the low carb thing in the past and it didnt teach me anything when I got to where I wanted to go other than restricting carbs, and anything that can be that restricting can be a tough thing to follow for a lifetime. I know there is some program to slowly increase them but the tougher things are the more people mess them up.
Even you mention how it is about less calories than you burn. If someone can do the same by not limiting really any food then that can be a more sustainable program than the low carb.
Yes, IF someone can do the same. But many people cannot. As for being too tough to follow, I agree in concept. But all diets have to be customized. And it's trial an error for people to figure out what is sustainable for them. For the record I've got no issue with your responses, they make sense and are based on your experience without generalizations.
I'm pissed because OP specifically asked how much to lower her carbs. I provided her with some guidance to get her started. And that other guy responds with his stupid gif, and vague, ignorant criticism. That does not help anybody.
Low-carb isn't for everybody. Nobody said it is. But those who are trying it need certain information in order to be successful. Those of us who have found success try to provide that information, and it gets diluted with ignorant, pointless criticism. These forums are here to provide support, and such behavior is the exact opposite of support.0 -
Stop fighting!! I think the gif was a mocking of sort,so if someone did that to you I'm sure you'd be a little upset .. You both are entitled to your opinions & try to respect each other & not be the know it all.. The carb thing is important to control, but for me I'm so darn confused as to what to do.. Good opinions on both sides ..0
-
Cutting carbs wasnt that difficult, just limited the foods to eat and in the long run wasnt as sustainable as just whatever I want at a deficit.
So you want to disagree with his comment that weight loss is about caloris in vs calories out by stating that restricting carbs HELPS THEM MAINTAIN A CALORIC DEFICIT?
Not always true, especially for those with glucose metabolism issues. And restricting carbs for many actually helps them maintain a caloric deficit more easily because fat and protein are highly satiating and they aren't eating as many food with empty calories (often found in high carb foods).
So, you may not like the source of the material, but there are solid reasons for the advice. Can't say the same for your completely empty ridicule.
Makes sense to me.
Give me 100 subjects who lost weight by simply reducing caloric intake and eating what they chose and 100 subjects who did it by going low carb and you can be the former will stick with it longer down the road.
I'm saying that they're both legitimate paths, depending on the individual circumstances. Some will find sheer caloric deficit sufficient, others will need to manipulate the deficit in very specific ways to (1) see comparable results and (2) maintain the change in the long term.
For those with glucose metabolism issues, restricting carbs is almost a must (though the amount of restriction greatly varies) -- go talk to people with diabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, etc. and you'll see this is a common path. And considering that over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance in the pre-diabetic or diabetic category, there a LOT of people with such issues -- and many of them are undiagnosed and unaware of such issues -- both for themselves personally as well as how incredibly common they are in the population at large. And I bet of people significantly over weight (30+ lbs), it's even more common as insulin resistance makes it easier to put on weight and harder to take it off.
But, hey, just ignore all those real-world issues and keep spouting your one-way-is-the-only-way rhetoric.
Never said my way is the only way. Nice try though.
More sustainable? Cutting carbs or simply eating at a caloric deficit?
Did the low carb, worked like a charm, but when ya get back into the real life of eating it wasnt so fancy.
You present a false argument. You say I was arguing against a caloric deficit -- when I was doing nothing of the sort. Merely pointing out the restricting carbs can be helpful for many ways and that a mere caloric deficit will not be enough for SOME people to see the same results and maintain in the longterm.
You may have found cutting carbs to be more difficult than just a caloric deficit. I found it to be the EXACT opposite. Different people with different issues. Both paths can lead to success, depending on the individual's needs.
Wasn't as sustainable for YOU. For many of us it's quite sustainable. For me personally, it's the easiest thing to do because I just feel so much better on it -- it's an easy choice with that sort of feedback loop. Once again, different bodies, different needs, different reactions to the food.0 -
Stop fighting!! I think the gif was a mocking of sort,so if someone did that to you I'm sure you'd be a little upset .. You both are entitled to your opinions & try to respect each other & not be the know it all.. The carb thing is important to control, but for me I'm so darn confused as to what to do.. Good opinions on both sides ..
What are you confused about? Or what are you trying to do?0 -
Hi! I do lower carb. I'm at about 100 carbs on a 1500 calorie diet. I usually net around 50-60. That's what works for me and makes me feel good.0
-
Nothing wrong with restricting carbs if you find it easier to adhere to, but Sisson's graph is utter nonsense. Plenty have lost significant weight while consuming levels of carbs that he claims will result in "insidious weight gain".
So it's got a flaw. I noted that in my original post about it:Bear in mind, the ranges provided are going to be higher if you are very active. And I'm not sure the statement that you will gain weight if you eat more than 150 g is completely true. I think what really happens is that if you eat less than 150 g/day, your body can burn all of the glucose and does not need to store it as fat. More than 150 g/day and you are storing some of the glucose as fat. If you're eating at a deficit, you can still lose weight. But you'll be producing new fat cells at the same time that you're trying to burn the old fat cells, making weight loss or maintenance harder. That's just my interpretation, I may be wrong.
Again, doesn't make it ridiculous. It's a place to start.
It's ridiculous because it is completely made up and bears no resemblance to reality. His knowledge of human physiology is laughable. Create new fat cells while losing weight? Really?
The number of fat cells in your body remains constant, whether lean or obese.
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2008/NR-08-05-01.html0 -
But ..... but bread and pasta is delicious ....0
-
Your plan is kind of similar to mine (most of the time)--I don't cut vegetables and fruit at all, or dairy either, but have made other carbs less of a focus of my diet. I often do have them with dinner or, if wanting them, with lunch instead, but generally keep starchy stuff or grains to one meal and just add extra vegetables to the others. To me this is more filling, but people have different experiences.
Anyway, this comes in at about 30% carbs, and I try to get about 35% protein and 35% fat (some variation allowed). When I'm eating only my non-exercise goal that conveniently also gives me the protein I want, based on my lean body mass, and when I eat more due to exercise calories I don't worry too much about the source and generally do eat more carbs.
Mostly, though, I recommend experimenting with it and seeing how you feel. I cut carbs just because I was trying to raise protein and it seemed the most appealing way based on my tastes to create a sustainable diet where I wouldn't feel deprived, and I was if anything surprised at how well it worked. Maybe I didn't cut enough for it to matter, but I never felt a lack of energy and the main result for me is that I have far fewer ups and downs or times when I have a food crash in the afternoon and get exhausted or the like.0 -
Nothing wrong with restricting carbs if you find it easier to adhere to, but Sisson's graph is utter nonsense. Plenty have lost significant weight while consuming levels of carbs that he claims will result in "insidious weight gain".
So it's got a flaw. I noted that in my original post about it:Bear in mind, the ranges provided are going to be higher if you are very active. And I'm not sure the statement that you will gain weight if you eat more than 150 g is completely true. I think what really happens is that if you eat less than 150 g/day, your body can burn all of the glucose and does not need to store it as fat. More than 150 g/day and you are storing some of the glucose as fat. If you're eating at a deficit, you can still lose weight. But you'll be producing new fat cells at the same time that you're trying to burn the old fat cells, making weight loss or maintenance harder. That's just my interpretation, I may be wrong.
Again, doesn't make it ridiculous. It's a place to start.
It's ridiculous because it is completely made up and bears no resemblance to reality. His knowledge of human physiology is laughable. Create new fat cells while losing weight? Really?
The number of fat cells in your body remains constant, whether lean or obese.
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2008/NR-08-05-01.html
I don't agree with all of his reasoning -- but there are legitimate reasons for the restriction of carbs and the levels he suggests are good starting points. You're simply wrong about there being no basis in reality for his recommendations (even if the reasoning behind them is flawed).0 -
But ..... but bread and pasta is delicious ....
It is, but if it makes you feel terrible, it loses a lot of its appeal.0 -
I suggest you read the Primal Blueprint (by the same author that writes MarksDailyApple.com). This book mostly promotes a paleo lifestyle, but I'm recommending it because he does a good job explaining what carbs have to do with weight management.
Thank you for a useless response. So supportive and helpful.
Really, this thread was actually doing very well at just offering advice and not putting down people's opinions. It's a good thing you're around to screw that all up
About as useful as relying on Sisson's ridiculous carbohydrate curve.
Weight loss is about calories in vs calories out. Period. If you are in a caloric deficit you will lose weight, regardless of whether or not you restrict carbs.
How much have you lost? I've lost 20 lbs in 8 weeks following "Sisson's ridiculous carbohydrate curve".
Yes, you need to have a calorie deficit. For an awful lot of people eating less carbs makes it easier to do so. The carb curve provides guidance to figure out where to start. Perhaps you should do a little reading on the topic before putting down these ideas. If it's not for you, that's your business. But thousands have found that Sisson's (and Taubes', and Atkins') advise works. And others have found that it doesn't, I'm aware of that. But that just means people are diverse. It doesn't make it ridiculous.
Edit: One more fact: According to MFP I should only be losing about 1 lbs/week based on my calorie deficit. I'm averaging 2.5 lbs/week. There's something else going on here. Could be the lower carbs, could be something else. Either way, it's more than just calorie deficit.
might wanna take it easy throwing around your losses and asking what other people have lost in a judgmental way. your start date and your ticker make that an interesting statement for you to make.
perhaps your rapid weight loss can be contributed, in part, to the fact that you have quite a bit to lose. it IS due to calorie deficit and that rate will slow down as you continue to lose.0 -
I suggest you read the Primal Blueprint (by the same author that writes MarksDailyApple.com). This book mostly promotes a paleo lifestyle, but I'm recommending it because he does a good job explaining what carbs have to do with weight management.
Thank you for a useless response. So supportive and helpful.
Really, this thread was actually doing very well at just offering advice and not putting down people's opinions. It's a good thing you're around to screw that all up
About as useful as relying on Sisson's ridiculous carbohydrate curve.
Weight loss is about calories in vs calories out. Period. If you are in a caloric deficit you will lose weight, regardless of whether or not you restrict carbs.
How much have you lost? I've lost 20 lbs in 8 weeks following "Sisson's ridiculous carbohydrate curve".
Yes, you need to have a calorie deficit. For an awful lot of people eating less carbs makes it easier to do so. The carb curve provides guidance to figure out where to start. Perhaps you should do a little reading on the topic before putting down these ideas. If it's not for you, that's your business. But thousands have found that Sisson's (and Taubes', and Atkins') advise works. And others have found that it doesn't, I'm aware of that. But that just means people are diverse. It doesn't make it ridiculous.
Edit: One more fact: According to MFP I should only be losing about 1 lbs/week based on my calorie deficit. I'm averaging 2.5 lbs/week. There's something else going on here. Could be the lower carbs, could be something else. Either way, it's more than just calorie deficit.
might wanna take it easy throwing around your losses and asking what other people have lost in a judgmental way. your start date and your ticker make that an interesting statement for you to make.
perhaps your rapid weight loss can be contributed, in part, to the fact that you have quite a bit to lose. it IS due to calorie deficit and that rate will slow down as you continue to lose.
Or perhaps our means of calculating calorie deficit is severely limited as the calorie out part of the equation can vary so greatly. Some go as far to call it meaningless, though I personally think that's overreaching -- more it's a useful guideline, but not the only consideration from a practical standpoint.0 -
might wanna take it easy throwing around your losses and asking what other people have lost in a judgmental way. your start date and your ticker make that an interesting statement for you to make.
perhaps your rapid weight loss can be contributed, in part, to the fact that you have quite a bit to lose. it IS due to calorie deficit and that rate will slow down as you continue to lose.
That's true. I couldn't resist. That's guys just being an *kitten*. He clearly doesn't know any more than anybody else on here, and all he does is criticize. I apologize if I'm offending anybody with my defense.0 -
Seeing as how you are asking strangers on an internet forum - as opposed to your doctor/dietician - I'm going to assume that you aren't under a doctor's care/instructions to do this and don't have a medical need to go low-carb.
As such, it doesn't really matter. Pick a number. There's your answer.
If, however, you are under care to go low-carb, then ask your doctor/dietician.
Wow TR0berts, that was kinda rude. I thought the forums were so we can ask questions. It's really a shame that people like you feel the need to make others feel stupid for asking questions. If you didn't like the question then I would have been perfectly fine without your snide comments. Thanks.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Just wanted to thank everyone for their advice. I will be looking at some of the books and articles you posted. I do ok with reducing carbs as far as weight loss but my body does not like it as far as my digestion. I really appreciate your time and comments but don't appreciate the way some people make people feel like their advice is stupid. I asked a simple question and was looking for information which I got and will evaluate what might work for me. At least now I have some material to check out. The doctor has not always been very helpful which is why I asked here. Thank you for all the great input!0
-
Seeing as how you are asking strangers on an internet forum - as opposed to your doctor/dietician - I'm going to assume that you aren't under a doctor's care/instructions to do this and don't have a medical need to go low-carb.
As such, it doesn't really matter. Pick a number. There's your answer.
If, however, you are under care to go low-carb, then ask your doctor/dietician.
Wow TR0berts, that was kinda rude. I thought the forums were so we can ask questions. It's really a shame that people like you feel the need to make others feel stupid for asking questions. If you didn't like the question then I would have been perfectly fine without your snide comments. Thanks.
lol you dug up a month-old thread for that?
0 -
I saw nothing rude in that post. Not sure where you see itSeeing as how you are asking strangers on an internet forum - as opposed to your doctor/dietician - I'm going to assume that you aren't under a doctor's care/instructions to do this and don't have a medical need to go low-carb.
As such, it doesn't really matter. Pick a number. There's your answer.
If, however, you are under care to go low-carb, then ask your doctor/dietician.
Wow TR0berts, that was kinda rude. I thought the forums were so we can ask questions. It's really a shame that people like you feel the need to make others feel stupid for asking questions. If you didn't like the question then I would have been perfectly fine without your snide comments. Thanks.
Also, man, talk about delayed reaction.
I've been away. Thanks for the comment.0 -
Yesterday was my first day at really attempting a low-carb diet. I ended up eating under 150g which I guess isn't low-carb at all to people on ketogenic diets. The fruit and vegetables are where all my carbs came from. I work out in the evening and was noticeably WEAKER at the gym today. I felt unenergetic and my lifting suffered a lot. I want to lower my carbs further but it's going to be really hard. I already cut out almost all grains and starches. I love fruit though so giving up most of that will be hard. My body seems to be really sensitive to holding on to or storing fat which means my insulin levels should be lower in order to become lean.0
-
This content has been removed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions